Validation of the Greek Translation of the Nursing Dimensions Inventory questionnaire (NDI-35)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The concept of care is a fundamental issue in nursing science. Therefore the development and the use of tools for assessing care is an imperative for the nursing profession. The NDI-35 questionnaire is one such tool for assessing the nursing care. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this paper is to adapt and use the NDI-35 questionnaire in Greek nursing practice. A translation and validation of NDI-35 questionnaire is performed. METHODS: Exploratory factor analyses, as well as internal consistency and test-retest analyses, were conducted. Forward translations from English were produced by three independent Greek translators and then back translations by five independent bilingual translators. The Greek NDI-35 questionnaire that was produced was administered to 200 nurses (144 women and 56 men) from tertiary and secondary health care facilities. Data were analyzed using principal component analysis and Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty four nurses that answered the NDI-35 questionnaire were graduates from the Technological Educational Institute (T.E.I.) and 64% of the respondents had more than 15 years of professional experience. Two subscales arbitrarily called "clinical work" and "patient needs" emerged, with the mean "clinical work" subscale score being at 70.16 ±12.90 (a maximum of 85) and mean "patient needs" subscale at 21.49± 6.16. Considerable differences in scoring among different items were observed when the NDI-35 answers were compared to their Greek counterparts'. Results confirmed that: (a) the translated versions are an accurate translation of the original, (b) factor analyses established similar factor solutions as that of the English versions, (c) reliability coefficients are satisfactory (i.e., Cronbach's ? coefficients and test-retests), and (d) construct validity revealed similarities between English and Greek versions, replications consistent with past research, as well as differences explained through theoretical frameworks. Therefore, both scales were accepted as valid and reliable measures in Greek-speaking populations. CONCLUSION: Alphas and test-retest correlation suggest the Greek translated and validated NDI-35 questionnaire is a reliable tool for assessing nursing care. Factor analysis and focus group input suggest it is a valid tool. Nurses in different settings may perceive nursing care differently. The findings of the current paper are discussed in the context of nurse education and assessment of care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".